Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[Alessandro]

The evidence is there for a Biblical earth, they refuse to see an alternative to having no God as a creator. Or whatever it is, we have two groups at an everlasting disagreement, nothing wrong with that, but everybody will soon see and know.

 

[Aaron11]

I think we've got our evidence of humanity's descent from primates--all I see from the creationists here is poo-flinging.

(poo fling)!

 

[fortheloveofmike]

I think we've got our evidence of humanity's descent from primates--all I see from the creationists here is poo-flinging.

instead of everyone saying they have evidence of evolution and saying we are all blind for not seeing it, maybe you can show us some of it. maybe i came in too late to see it all, but i really havent seen anything but magazine articles saying evolution is true. that is not evidence.

 

[Megachihuahua]

instead of everyone saying they have evidence of evolution and saying we are all blind for not seeing it, maybe you can show us some of it. maybe i came in too late to see it all, but i really havent seen anything but magazine articles saying evolution is true. that is not evidence.

May your decsendants be more numerous than the stars!

 

[fortheloveofmike]

May your decsendants be more numerous than the stars!

you too man

 

[revolutio]

Well that depends on how you define evolution unfortunately. Small scale evolution is fact, but before you jump on me with that Pious stick... *wields his Heresy Shield*

Anyway evolution on a small scale makes sense. Lets take something I learned about Cheetahs recently. The young kittens/pups/whatever have a large tuft of fur on the back of their neck. This is there to make them appear larger and more formidable to predators.

Now prior to this "evolving" lets suppose there were two cheetah babies. One had slightly longer hair on the back of its neck than the other. This happens thanks to just the seemingly random way DNA gets paired up, the same reason two children of the same parents dont look identical. When a predator decide he felt like some Cheetah for supper he saw two easy targets. He decided to go after the one that looked like an easier catch: the one without the fur on the back of its neck. So now we have one cheetah left. This guy grows up and has kids of his own. Because they got some genes from their father one has rather long fur on his neck (even moreso than his dad). Some predator gets the munchies, and the cycle continues.

Now this is relatively simple and if you have any problems with it I am stumped since I am pretty narrow-minded.

As for large scale evolution, there is plenty of evidence that people can say points one way or another, but, obviously, none of it is terribly convincing since people seem to be quite divided over this.

If you want to see "evidence" pointing one way or another, look it up on Google if you are truely open to other possibilities.

 

[Dayton]

instead of everyone saying they have evidence of evolution and saying we are all blind for not seeing it, maybe you can show us some of it. maybe i came in too late to see it all, but i really havent seen anything but magazine articles saying evolution is true. that is not evidence.

There is no real evidence for evolution. Evolution is a faith-based religion that is incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

There is no real evidence for evolution. Evolution is a faith-based religion that is incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible.

thats exactly what i said a few pages back, but no. they all insist there is tons of evidence for it. they just keep it locked up in a safe somewhere for their personal pleasure, no one is allowed to see it.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

There is no real evidence for evolution.

Plenty of evidence has been presented on this website already. You could also get an introductory evolutionary biology textbook from a library if you were truly willing to learn.

Evolution is a faith-based religion that is incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible.

Why do you persist on propagating falsehoods? Evolution is not faith-based nor is it a religion, which has been explained to you already.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Well that depends on how you define evolution unfortunately. Small scale evolution is fact, but before you jump on me with that Pious stick... *wields his Heresy Shield*

Anyway evolution on a small scale makes sense. Lets take something I learned about Cheetahs recently. The young kittens/pups/whatever have a large tuft of fur on the back of their neck. This is there to make them appear larger and more formidable to predators.

Now prior to this "evolving" lets suppose there were two cheetah babies. One had slightly longer hair on the back of its neck than the other. This happens thanks to just the seemingly random way DNA gets paired up, the same reason two children of the same parents dont look identical. When a predator decide he felt like some Cheetah for supper he saw two easy targets. He decided to go after the one that looked like an easier catch: the one without the fur on the back of its neck. So now we have one cheetah left. This guy grows up and has kids of his own. Because they got some genes from their father one has rather long fur on his neck (even moreso than his dad). Some predator gets the munchies, and the cycle continues.

Now this is relatively simple and if you have any problems with it I am stumped since I am pretty narrow-minded.

As for large scale evolution, there is plenty of evidence that people can say points one way or another, but, obviously, none of it is terribly convincing since people seem to be quite divided over this.

If you want to see "evidence" pointing one way or another, look it up on Google if you are truely open to other possibilities.

that is called natural selection. evolution involves natural selection, but they arent the same thing. natural selection makes sense, evolution does not.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

For all these people crying there's no evidence for evolution, maybe you can explain the following for me:

1) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in insects

2) The various dog, cat, etc, breeds that have appeared over the last 100 years or so

3) Hybridization of plants to produce new species

4) Shared endogenous retroviral insertions in the genetic structures of chimps and humans, but not other primates

5) Vestigal structures (human tails, whale legs, etc) that occur in some organisms from time-to-time

That should do it for now. Take your time.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

thats exactly what i said a few pages back, but no. they all insist there is tons of evidence for it. they just keep it locked up in a safe somewhere for their personal pleasure, no one is allowed to see it.

This from the person who asked for a specific example of species-to-species transitions (despite not wanting to visit any "evolutionist" web sites), then made a sarcastic hand-waving dismissal when provided with one. Uh-huh.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Plenty of evidence has been presented on this website already. You could also get an introductory evolutionary biology textbook from a library if you were truly willing to learn.

no there isnt evidence here. there are links to evolutionist homepages and magazine articles saying evolution is true. im looking for proof evolution could or did happen. like maybe transitional species. (im not talking species that have similar toes to one type of animal and arms of another) or proof of evolution ever being reinacted.

Why do you persist on propagating falsehoods? Evolution is not faith-based nor is it a religion, which has been explained to you already.

yes it is faith based. you must believe that evolution happened even though there is no evidence that it ever did happen. that is called faith, i cant believe you deny that.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

This from the person who asked for a specific example of species-to-species transitions (despite not wanting to visit any "evolutionist" web sites), then made a sarcastic hand-waving dismissal when provided with one. Uh-huh.

i hardly call an animal with similar toes proof of a transitional species. cmon. be real.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

no there isnt evidence here. there are links to evolutionist homepages and magazine articles saying evolution is true.

Given that any source listing evidence for evolution you would discredit as being an "evolutionist" website, then how would anyone be able to provide any evidence.

im looking for proof evolution could or did happen.

There is no such thing as proof in science.

like maybe transitional species. (im not talking species that have similar toes to one type of animal and arms of another) or proof of evolution ever being reinacted.

Archaeopteryx has both avian and reptilian characteristics.

yes it is faith based. you must believe that evolution happened even though there is no evidence that it ever did happen. that is called faith, i cant believe you deny that.

Correct, faith is belief without evidence, but since evidence supports the theory of evolution (otherwise it would not exist in the first place), it is not faith based.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

1) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in insects

how about natural selection. the bacteria that couldnt live with the pesticides didnt. the ones who could did. leaving only then to reproduce.

2) The various dog, cat, etc, breeds that have appeared over the last 100 years or so

how about cross breeds. such as the cockapoo (mix between a cocker spaniel and poodle) that one was pretty easy

3) Hybridization of plants to produce new species

that is when plants are cross bred to make new species, which has nothing to do with evolution

4) Shared endogenous retroviral insertions in the genetic structures of chimps and humans, but not other primates

im not too sure what this has to do with evolution

5) Vestigal structures (human tails, whale legs, etc) that occur in some organisms from time-to-time

i dont know much about the human tails, but i think they are used for support while sitting. about the whale legs, i dont know what those even are, let alone why they are.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Archaeopteryx has both avian and reptilian characteristics.

yes. the archaeoptryx has both teeth and a beak i believe. and feathers and arms, if im not mistaken. but just cause it has the same characteristics as two different animals, doesnt mean that it was the missing link between them. it just means that the animal had characteristics from both. these characteristics werent vestigal, they were all used.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

i hardly call an animal with similar toes proof of a transitional species. cmon. be real.

What are you basing your objection on? Did you bother to research the cited reference?

 

[Nathan Poe]

how about natural selection. the bacteria that couldnt live with the pesticides didnt. the ones who could did. leaving only then to reproduce.

Which is precisely what Charles Darwin said would happen. So you do believe in evolution, after all...

how about cross breeds. such as the cockapoo (mix between a cocker spaniel and poodle) that one was pretty easy

that is when plants are cross bred to make new species, which has nothing to do with evolution

Hello? "make new species?" That is evolution, my friend.

im not too sure what this has to do with evolution

The short version is that on a genetic level, humans are a lot closer to chimps than you'd probably want to admit.

i dont know much about the human tails, but i think they are used for support while sitting. about the whale legs, i dont know what those even are, let alone why they are.

Sometimes people are born with tails. I'm talking real, actual, stick-out-of-the-back-of-your-pants tails. We still have the genes for tails in our DNA; sometimes there's a mutation that activates the gene (short version)

And if you study whale skeletons, you can see bone structures that show what were probably legs a billion years ago. No reason for those to be there if God "created" the whale as a sea creature all along. (another short version, which I probably got wrong.)

I'll leave the specific details for posters more learned than me.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

how about natural selection. the bacteria that couldnt live with the pesticides didnt. the ones who could did. leaving only then to reproduce.

How are those bacteria resistant in the first place? If a drug was administered against a certain type of bacteria, shouldn't it have killed them all?

how about cross breeds. such as the cockapoo (mix between a cocker spaniel and poodle) that one was pretty easy

And how do you get cross breeds? What's the mechanism at work here?

that is when plants are cross bred to make new species, which has nothing to do with evolution

Sure it is. Recombination of genetic material to produce a whole new species. What else would you call it?

im not too sure what this has to do with evolution

At some point in history, a retroviral DNA insertion took place. As the species reproduced, this DNA was passed down for generations, until we end up where we are today. Now, either it shows that the DNA came from a common ancestor between chimps and humans, or it shows that there is a mind-bogglingly unlikely conincidence in the DNA structures between chimps and humans (in other words, multiple retroviral insertions in both species in the same place in their respective genomes).

I've yet to here a satisfactory explanation for this from a creationist.

i dont know much about the human tails, but i think they are used for support while sitting. about the whale legs, i dont know what those even are, let alone why they are.

Whale legs